US mayors run ad during Olympics coverage calling for tighter gun controls

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

A group of US mayors joined forces with survivors of the Tucson gun rampage on Sunday to step up their campaign for tighter gun controls in the wake of the recent mass killing in Aurora, Colorado.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the bipartisan coalition of more than 700 mayors including New York's Michael Bloomberg, released a television advertisement during Olympics coverage and the US's top politics shows calling for president Barack Obama and his rival governor Mitt Romney to tackle gun violence.

The ad features survivors of the Tucson shooting in January 2011 that claimed six lives and left another 13 injured, including US representative Gabby Giffords.

"Because 48,000 Americans will be murdered with guns during the next president's term. That's three Aurora shootings every day. We need less silence. And more courage," the survivors say.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/05/us-mayors-olympics-gun-control

---

[SoapBox]

1. *splat*

That sound was Mr. Creep, head of the NRA, having a head implosion.

Stand back and look for the Thug, Bully and Bagger Party Puppets to attack these mayors.

[jillan]

2. Bravo!!!!

[babylonsister]

3. Recommend. nt

[MindMover]

4. K&RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[fascisthunter]

5. good idea

[hughee99]

6. I understand Chicago (and Illinois in general) has passed significant legislation

It issues no concealed carry licenses, nor does it accept them from other states. Gun sales are prohibited within city limits and all firearms are required to be registered with the local police department. They have banned those semi-automatic weapons that they consider to be assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. These seem to be some of the policies people have been supporting in the wake of recent tragedies.

I haven't been able to find the firearm statistics yet, but gun violence must be very rare in Chicago because of such laws.

[hack89]

7. Chicago had to write a check for $399,950 to gun rights group The Second Amendment Foundation

to settle McDonald v. Chicago.

They are (reluctantly) big financial supporters of the gun right movement.

[Remmah2]

9. Laws are only good if people obey them.

Is the Coalition of Urban Criminals going to approve of criminals turning in their firearms?

[hughee99]

10. Chicago has many of the laws people are suggesting,

(no CCW, no open carry, no sales, restrictions on weapon type and magazine size), it would only make sense to emulate those laws so everyone could be as safe as the people of Chicago. Again, I haven't seen the statistics but I've been assured that such restrictions would be very effective at reducing gun violence, so I'm assuming that Chicago is a very safe city, at least compared to others without such restrictions.

[Remmah2]

11. I look at the pinheads around me on the commute each day.

In a 55mph zone: cell phones, texting, reading, eating w/a spoon, rummaging through folders, make-up, map reading, lap tops.......

For the most part, all of these people are law abiding people going to work/college and they are doing the damnest things that defy common sense. Do these people care about the tickets, fines, accidents?

So what of criminals then? They have even less respect for the rest of us.

[hughee99]

13. No, but I am suggesting the policies implemented in Chicago have not

proven very effective and implementing those same regulations elsewhere may not address the issue either. Perhaps it's time to look at the root causes of these issues (poverty, mental healthcare, etc...) if we want to address the issues rather than just pass regulations that make us feel like we're doing something about it.

[tiny elvis]

14. poverty and guns, mental healthcare and guns, etc and guns

you are heavily into verbal weapon concealment

was the neonazi poor?
do racists qualify for mental health care?
people who gently caress guns tell me that etc is the real issue
etc being everything from mental illness to things that are not mental illness
just whatever, but not guns

let us look beyond chicago policy, then, to what really works
http://infosurhoy.com/cocoon/saii/xhtml/en_GB/features/saii/features/main/2010/05/13/feature-01

[hughee99]

15. It seems Brazil is not the US...

Barreto says two types of Brazilians carry a firearm: cops and criminals.

“It’s almost zero the number of people who ask for authorization to carry a firearm who are not in the public security forces,” Barreto says.

Good for them to see a drop in gun violence, but if you think there's going to be a round up of guns in the US, it just isn't going to happen. How about if we take a look at why people use them for violence, especially given that a vast majority of guns in the US are not used in violent crimes. Lots of people in the US have guns, a very small number of them use them to shoot up a place of worship, movie theater or school.

The national stats in the article don't seem to match up with the stats I found here, either.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil

In Brazil, annual firearm homicides total

2008: 34,67815
2007: 34,147
2006: 34,921
2005: 33,419
2004: 34,187
2002: 34,08518
2000: 30,85519
Compare
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn Brazil, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2008: 18.115 16
2007: 18.0
2006: 18.6
2005: 18.015
2004: 18.6
2002: 21.7018
1993: 10.5820

[tiny elvis]

16. you already said no, no to all

now, this particular is not so bad, that particular not so very bad given that etc

look at why people use (guns) for violence

why do people use cars for travel?

a very small number

did you mean an acceptable number?
i thought you wanted to end the massacres with your very sincere and probing question
of why people use weapons for violence

get your lines straight and congruous and feel free to probe more into why primates
given the power of gods will use it selfishly
while twenty people die every day

[hughee99]

18. Where did I say no, and what did I say no to?

I didn't see it, could you help me out with this? You seem to be trying really hard to paint my argument as "get rid of all gun laws, who cares how many people are killed". How about you work on your own argument.

You posted an article about Brazil discussing a reduction in guns as a result of a national policy resulting in a significant reduction in homicides (NOT specifically gun homicides), but based on the statistics I found, GUN homicides have remained relatively steady nationally, at least during the time period before and after this law was passed. If the statistics I have are accurate, it looks like the article tries to confuse the reader by jumping backing and forth between national and local (Sao Paolo) issues and cherry picking certain statistics while leaving out others. If you're talking about getting guns off the streets, what's more relevant, homicides or GUN homicides? Homicides went down, gun related homicides remained steady. You know what, lets just ignore that last bit, since it doesn't fit the "guns are the only problem" narrative.

[primavera]

19. No, laws are good if most people obey them

There has never been a law that wasn't at some point broken by someone, yet a system of laws is still preferable to lawlessness and anarchy.

[uh clem]

8. Good for them.

n/m

[4th law of robotics]

17. If only the whole nation could have the gun regulations of DC, Detroit, or Chicago

then we could be crime free utopias like those shining beacons.

[primavera]

20. That's about what it would take

With open internal borders between states and widely disparate laws on access to guns, it's hard for any state or local laws to have much impact. DC has tried to implement responsible gun control laws, but since it's only a metro stop away from Virginia where you can get a gun easier than you can get a beer, it's admittedly pretty meaningless.